You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

It suggests that teams bat out a day to save a test at least as much as they did before T20.

It does more than suggest that, it comes pretty close to demonstrating it. Whether that's quite good enough on its own to disprove the thesis that T20 has markedly reduced teams' ability to bat out for draws is a little more questionable but beyond opinion, no evidence at all has been presented to support that thesis. There are fewer draws overall in tests now that there were, which could be adduced but that's probably for the same reason you mentioned earlier as being implicated in teams batting out a day plus for a draw more: that faster scoring rates give sides more time to try to force a win.

I would argue that the quality of seam bowling is also a big factor and flat pitches designed for biffers. I might be wrong.

I do love a last day block for draw. A true sign of character in a player.

Fewer draws overall though, I think, suggesting that the apparently weaker seam bowling and flat tracks aren't winning out consistently. Of course that could also be framed as a failure of defensive technique.

Indeed, much disappointment at the standard of cricket was expressed at the time, particularly during the most recent Ashes series.

Is the lack of application and determination and the "gung-ho" approach we see in much test cricket now coincidental with the glut of T20 cricket or cause and effect? I'd say it is more likely to be the latter.

I'd say the focus on t20 is the main cause, both from too much cricket and falling standards. A lot of ex players (Ranatunga, Holding, Greg Chapel, Imran Khan, Viv Richards and so forth) have expressed concerns about this. Particularly that a lot of nations have no longer have the incentive (especially monetarily) or feel the need to develop test players any more. There is even the opinion from within the domestic game in Aus (Manou for instance) that t20 has taken precedence and standards are falling.

Though I don't know if there is a way to analyse it statistically. Teams with less skill across the board could well appear no different result wise to other eras, though since 2010 at least, tests are getting shorter.

There are other factors that might make analysis difficult. Take Faff's save in Adelaide. An analysis wouldn't take into account that our strike bowler went down after 9 overs in the 1st innings with a lot of part timers then covering (Ponting even got to have a bowl lol). Siddle bowled himself into the ground to the extent he was ruled out of the next test, which featured a 2nd string attack led by Starc (and hence we got flogged). The only thing that seems apparent is that tail enders are better batsmen than they used to be.

Starc could be one example of the influence of shorter formats. A great short form bowler with a mile of potential who doesn't have the skills to play test cricket (at least yet, IMO). Gets wickets against the run of play and can't apply pressure (his 5 fors usually cost a lot of runs "5-150" and so forth in losing causes). Though he wouldn't be the first odi bowler not to transfer well to tests, yet bowling seems poor across the board.

The recent series against the Kiwis showed more examples. McCullum's innings achieved nothing other than setting a personal milestone. An ethos of ..."well we are probably going to lose, so lets have a lash". A more Dravid like innings, say 50 over a full day, would have helped his team more. Yet when faced with the possibility of chasing 5 an over on an exceptionally flat track to win a test match (waca), we saw no bravado at all, in favour of accepting the easy draw that was on offer. It seems to indicate a lack of will to fight when down. He might be a "one of" and a poor example, yet I think he is an exaggerated version of the problem.

Guptill, Warner, Smith to mention a few and any number of other players all seem to have the same problem and it doesn't seem uncommon, they just have it to lesser extent. There doesn't seem the same willingness to "leave" or play patiently as there used to be, nor the techniques suited to this.

Amid talk of the wickets being "flat" in Kiwiland also, I doubt that. I thought they were good test wickets, it was the bowling that was poor. The much hyped Kiwi attack was rubbish and in last test got most of their wickets via a second string bowler banging them in short. What is worse still is that our batsmen happily obliged.

Though it's not possible to support opinions definitively this way nor is there enough room to list such examples. No doubt there are counter examples also, so it amounts to opinion either way. IMO standards not only in batting (with exception of the tail in general) but in general across the board in test cricket are slipping and I think will get a lot worse. The future for test cricket doesn't look so good. I remember reading an opinion from Holding some years ago predicting that test cricket as we know it, is unlikely to exist within a couple of decades largely because of t20. While no one's opinion should be treated as the final word, it has merit and he could well be right.

I think the changes being proposed to test cricket are in many ways an acknowledgement that this is happening. It looks like they are trying to make test cricket more appealing to a different demographic (the t20 crowd) and whether it works out will be interesting to see. The Ashes will hopefully always be there (if they can fit them in).

Number of times a team batting 4th in a drawn test faced 90 or more overs:

Last ten years: 18
90s: 18
80s: 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by D/L

Very interesting. Not sure what it "proves", though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

It suggests that teams bat out a day to save a test at least as much as they did before T20.

The premise being, presumably, that it is only in the last innings of a test that a match saving approach can be appropriate. It is all very facile.

It takes no account, for example, of the occasions on which a team scored lowly in their first innings, started badly in their second and then took a cautious approach in that innings (not necessarily the 4th of the match).

Any road up, it is not exclusively the outcome of a match that reveals an intention. It is often the approach - sometimes teams try very hard (not so much since T20), but fail to save a match. Are there any figures for these?

I'd say the focus on t20 is the main cause, both from too much cricket and falling standards. A lot of ex players (Ranatunga, Holding, Greg Chapel, Imran Khan, Viv Richards and so forth) have expressed concerns about this. Particularly that a lot of nations have no longer have the incentive (especially monetarily) or feel the need to develop test players any more. There is even the opinion from within the domestic game in Aus (Manou for instance) that t20 has taken precedence and standards are falling.

Though I don't know if there is a way to analyse it statistically. Teams with less skill across the board could well appear no different result wise to other eras, though since 2010 at least, tests are getting shorter.

There are other factors that might make analysis difficult. Take Faff's save in Adelaide. An analysis wouldn't take into account that our strike bowler went down after 9 overs in the 1st innings with a lot of part timers then covering (Ponting even got to have a bowl lol). Siddle bowled himself into the ground to the extent he was ruled out of the next test, which featured a 2nd string attack led by Starc (and hence we got flogged). The only thing that seems apparent is that tail enders are better batsmen than they used to be.

Starc could be one example of the influence of shorter formats. A great short form bowler with a mile of potential who doesn't have the skills to play test cricket (at least yet, IMO). Gets wickets against the run of play and can't apply pressure (his 5 fors usually cost a lot of runs "5-150" and so forth in losing causes). Though he wouldn't be the first odi bowler not to transfer well to tests, yet bowling seems poor across the board.

The recent series against the Kiwis showed more examples. McCullum's innings achieved nothing other than setting a personal milestone. An ethos of ..."well we are probably going to lose, so lets have a lash". A more Dravid like innings, say 50 over a full day, would have helped his team more. Yet when faced with the possibility of chasing 5 an over on an exceptionally flat track to win a test match (waca), we saw no bravado at all, in favour of accepting the easy draw that was on offer. It seems to indicate a lack of will to fight when down. He might be a "one of" and a poor example, yet I think he is an exaggerated version of the problem.

Guptill, Warner, Smith to mention a few and any number of other players all seem to have the same problem and it doesn't seem uncommon, they just have it to lesser extent. There doesn't seem the same willingness to "leave" or play patiently as there used to be, nor the techniques suited to this.

Amid talk of the wickets being "flat" in Kiwiland also, I doubt that. I thought they were good test wickets, it was the bowling that was poor. The much hyped Kiwi attack was rubbish and in last test got most of their wickets via a second string bowler banging them in short. What is worse still is that our batsmen happily obliged.

Though it's not possible to support opinions definitively this way nor is there enough room to list such examples. No doubt there are counter examples also, so it amounts to opinion either way. IMO standards not only in batting (with exception of the tail in general) but in general across the board in test cricket are slipping and I think will get a lot worse. The future for test cricket doesn't look so good. I remember reading an opinion from Holding some years ago predicting that test cricket as we know it, is unlikely to exist within a couple of decades largely because of t20. While no one's opinion should be treated as the final word, it has merit and he could well be right.

I think the changes being proposed to test cricket are in many ways an acknowledgement that this is happening. It looks like they are trying to make test cricket more appealing to a different demographic (the t20 crowd) and whether it works out will be interesting to see. The Ashes will hopefully always be there (if they can fit them in).

Sorry for the length of post lol.

" A more Dravid like innings, say 50 over a full day, would have helped his team more."

What you mean like batting for 559 balls (the 9th most in test history) to draw a test and win a series when 4 down in the second innings still about 200 runs behind and with two and a bit days left?

Pity Dravid never managed anything as epic as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D/L

The premise being, presumably, that it is only in the last innings of a test that a match saving approach can be appropriate.

No.

You presume wrong.

The premise would be that batting for the last day of a test to save it would be examples of the skills and attitude that you claim are deficient.

Quote:

It is all very facile.

That's a very fair summation of your argument.

Quote:

It takes no account, for example, of the occasions on which a team scored lowly in their first innings, started badly in their second and then took a cautious approach in that innings (not necessarily the 4th of the match).

Any road up, it is not exclusively the outcome of a match that reveals an intention. It is often the approach - sometimes teams try very hard (not so much since T20), but fail to save a match. Are there any figures for these?

I don't have exact figures for the number of times you've moved the goalposts but there's an approximation helpfully contained under Leeds Carnegie in your profile.

Mr Sanskritsimon - my apologies. I fear I have let you down and Mickey Arthur will now drop me from the Pakistan side

Forgive me. I baulked at the estimated amount of time it would take to do the far more extensive and complex analysis (than the one we have seen) that would be required and I thought that producing any analysis of players' intentions over several decades may not even have been possible.

I suppose I could have just provided some superficially supporting figures but people may have seen through this.

Forgive me. I baulked at the estimated amount of time it would take to do the far more extensive and complex analysis (than the one we have seen) that would be required and I thought that producing any analysis of players' intentions over several decades may not even have been possible.

I suppose I could have just provided some superficially supporting figures but people may have seen through this.

You're completely transparent anyway. Do us all a favour and get off these forums. You're an absolute joke.

Forgive me. I baulked at the estimated amount of time it would take to do the far more extensive and complex analysis (than the one we have seen) that would be required and I thought that producing any analysis of players' intentions over several decades may not even have been possible.

I suppose I could have just provided some superficially supporting figures but people may have seen through this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

You're completely transparent anyway. Do us all a favour and get off these forums. You're an absolute joke.

I'm sure anyone receiving your support in a discussion will be heartened by the credibility and intellectual weight you always bring to their side of the debate.

Judging by the sanctimonious claptrap you post, I doubt you even know what a joke (in the real sense) is.

It's certainly amusing, though, that some seem to think there can be no influence from T20 on the way test cricket is played these days.